Although sodium restriction is routinely recommended for patients with heart failure (HF), the data is often conflicting with a number of studies suggesting that it may be harmful in some HF patient.

Two randomized trials (by the same group) involving patients with compensated HF recently discharged from the hospital reported that “less restricted” sodium diet (2.8 gm/d) along with fluid restriction (1 liter/d) and high-dose furosemide (at least 125-250 mg furosemide bid) was associated with less rates of readmissions and improved levels of brain natriuretic peptide, aldosterone and plasma renin activity when compared to patients on more restricted sodium diet (1.8 gm/d).1,2

Analysis of data from the multihospital HF Adherence and Retention Trial enrolling New York Heart Association functional class II/III HF patients found that sodium restriction (<2.5 gm/d) was associated with significantly higher risk of death or HF hospitalization but only in patients not on an angiotension converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.3

In normal subjects who are not sodium deprived, excess sodium intake has been shown to cause expansion of intravascular volume without increasing total body water.4 Thus, sodium restriction combined with diuretics may reduce intravascular volume and renal perfusion, further stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and fluid retention.5

Now that’s interesting!Did you know that the 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines downgraded the recommendation for sodium restriction to Class IIa (reasonable) with Level of Evidence:C? 6

Although its mechanism is not full elucidated, fixed drug eruption (FDE) is thought to result from the drug-induced cytotoxic activation of CD8+ memory T cells.1 ,2

In this context, the culprit medication behaves as a hapten that adheres to basal keratinocytes which in turn results in the recruitment of T cells and inflammation. However, as the inflammation resolves, CD8+ effector-memory T cells remain in the area in question, setting the stage for more rapid immunologic reaction when the drug is reintroduced.

Why a systemic drug triggers a reaction only at specific sites in the body is a fascinating question. Prior herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection (eg, on the lips or genitalia) may explain some cases.1 Interestingly, despite the absence of prior herpetic lesions, most patients with FDE are seropositive for HSV. Previously traumatized body sites (e.g. from burns or insect bites) may also create an immune microenvironment conducive to FDE.

The classic presentation of FDE is reappearance of a rash in the genitals, perianal areas, hands, and feet within 30 min to 8 hours of taking the culprit medication.3 Look specifically for NSAIDs, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and aspirin on the patient’s drug list. 4

In the same study, for oral electronic thermometers, sensitivity was 74% with a specificity of 86%. For temporal artery thermometers, sensitivities ranged from 26% to 91%, while specificities ranged from 67% to 100%. For tympanic membrane thermometers, sensitivities ranged from 23% to 87%, with a specificity of 57% to 99%.

So, it looks like while we may be pretty comfortable with a diagnosis of “fever” when our patient with chills has a high temperature recorded by a peripheral thermometer, lack of fever alone by these devices should not veer us away from the possibility of systemic infection. When in doubt and if possible, check a rectal temperature.

Yes! Even though we often think of temperatures of 100.4°F (38° C) or greater as fever, older people often fail to mount an appropriate febrile response despite having a serious infection. 1

Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline on evaluation of fever in older adult residents of long-term care facilities has defined fever in this population as:2

Single oral temperature >100° F (>37.8° C) OR

Repeated oral temperatures >99° F (>37.2° C) OR

Rectal temperatures >99.5° F (>37.5° C) OR

Increase in temperature of >2° F (>1.1° C) over the baseline temperature

Even at these lower than traditional thresholds for defining fever, remember that many infected elderly patients may still lack fever. In a study involving bacteremic patients, nearly 40% of those 80 years of age or older did not have fever (defined as maximum temperature over 24 hrs 100° F [37.8°C] or greater).3

So our patient meets the criteria for fever as suggested by IDSA guidelines and, particularly in light of her recent poor intake and falls, may need evaluation for a systemic source of infection.

Now that’s interesting!Did you know that blunted febrile response of the aged to infections may be related to the inability of cytokines (eg, IL-1) to reach the central nervous system?1

The mechanism behind digital clubbing has yet to be fully elucidated, with hypotheses ranging from a circulating vasodilator, tissue hypoxia, a neurocirculatory reflex, and genetic factors. 1 Although hypoxemia is often cited as a cause of clubbing, it is often absent in the presence of clubbing and many patients with hypoxemia do not have clubbing.

A potentially unifying pathophysiologic mechanism of clubbing revolves around platelet clustering and associated growth factor release. 2.3 Platelet clumps/megakaryocytes—either because of circumvention of the lung capillary network (eg, in intracardiac shunts or lung cancer) or increased production (eg, in left-sided endocarditis or chronic inflammatory conditions)—may wedge in the fine vasculature of distal fingertips or toes and cause release of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).

Together, PDGF and VEGF promote neovascularization, increase vessel dilation and permeability, and modify connective tissue to create the distinct club-like appearance. Local hypoxic condition from reduced capillary perfusion is thought to further stimulate the release of these growth factors.

Fun Fact: Did you know that clubbing, also known as “Hippocratic finger”, was first described by Hippocrates in a patient with chronic empyema (don’t ask how chronic empyema was diagnosed in 400 BC!)?1

The presence of hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsab) in patients who also test positive for core antibody does not necessarily confer full protection against hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppression (incidence 4.3%). 1 This is because despite having HBsab and no HB surface antigen, a small portion of patients continue to have detectable HBV DNA in the serum and are therefore at risk of reactivation during severe immunosuppression. 2

In fact, the American Gastroenterological Association recommends against using anti-HBs status to guide antiviral prophylaxis in anti-HBc-positive patients. 1

Overall, antiviral prophylaxis may reduce the risk of HBV reactivation by 87% (C.I. 70%-94%). Antiviral drugs with a high barrier to resistance (eg, entecavir) are preferred over lamivudine.